Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Path discarded.' It does not disclose whether the tool performs network access, returns a boolean, transforms the URL, or handles invalid input, leaving important behavior unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler or redundant content. It is well-structured and easy to read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns, how errors are surfaced, or what a successful parse looks like. Given nine optional parameters, this is insufficient context for an agent to confidently use the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although all parameters have descriptions, many are generic and unrelated to Figma URLs, such as city, zone, feed, and json. The url parameter is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than as a Figma file URL, and path is described as a file path while the main description refers to a URL path, creating confusion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool parses a Figma file URL and discards the path, which gives a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like normalize-url and fetch-status, though it could be more explicit about the expected output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking or URL-handling tools. The name implies Figma URL validation, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.